In a Supplementary Response to a Statement of Objections issued
by the Commission in December, Microsoft also accused the
Commission of withholding documents and colluding with its
competitors.
The Commission delayed until two days before Microsoft was due
to respond to the Statement before providing the firm with letters
and emails between the Commission and Trustee, and the Commission
and rivals, said the software giant.
These documents showed that there had been “inappropriate
contacts” between the parties, calling into question the
independence of the Trustee and violating principles of due
process, Microsoft alleged.
“The Commission collaborated with Microsoft’s adversaries to
undermine the transparency of the monitoring process and to
circumvent the principle of equality of arms. The Commission not
only failed to provide relevant communications with third parties
to Microsoft, but it sought to create the impression that such
materials did not exist,” it said in the Response.
“The Commission and the Trustee cannot fulfil their respective
roles as neutral regulator and independent monitor if they are
actively and secretly working with Microsoft’s adversaries,” it
added.
The European Commission has made no response to the allegations
other than to confirm that Microsoft will be appearing at a
previously arranged hearing at the end of March to put forward its
oral response to the Statement of Objections.
This was issued in December, obliging Microsoft to provide
evidence that it was complying with an antitrust ruling, or face
daily fines of up to €2 million.
Professor Neil Barrett, the Monitoring Trustee appointed by the
Commission (from a panel suggested by Microsoft) to assess the
completeness and accuracy of technical documentation provided by
Microsoft, had advised the Commission that the information provided
by the company was not sufficient to show compliance with the
interoperability requirements of the ruling.
That ruling, from March 2004, found that Microsoft broke
competition law by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for
PC operating systems onto the markets for work group server
operating systems and for media players.
The Commission imposed a fine, ordered Microsoft to offer an
alternative stripped-down version of Windows, and ordered the firm
to publish some of its interfaces, so that competitors could make
their products interoperable with Windows.
Microsoft has paid the fine and produced the alternative Windows
version, but has been slow to produce what the Commission sees as
adequate interoperability information.
Microsoft’s appeal of the ruling is due to come before the
European Court of First Instance in April.
